If Steve is still here, he would have pulled out from Switzerland immediately and we would have popcorns in our hands.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Swiss Court Backs Swatch in 'Tick Different' Trademark Row With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly! People outside the US probably never heard or seen the “think different” campaign. And even in the US, people under a certain age probably never seen it either.
[doublepost=1554215621][/doublepost]
Wow that is so wrong. That was in 2011, I hope the coffee shop prevailed. Does anyone know?
[doublepost=1554215848][/doublepost]
Yay the coffee shop won two years later
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/art...pfelkind-takes-bite-out-apple-copyright-fight
Last edited:
I don't recall any Think Different ads using the Apple Watch, or even in the Apple Watch era. Those ads were really about desktop and laptop computers. I wouldn't think there would be much real brand confusion between an old slogan dealing with computers and a new slogan dealing with watches, especially since they are only identical in one word. IMHO, Apple is reaching here.
Why would anyone want a watch that “Tick’s Different” in the first place?
Sounds like a watch that can’t keep accurate time.
Sounds like a watch that can’t keep accurate time.
Some may be hurting but Swatch group isn't. Their luxury and prestige business grew the most in 2017, and the basic mid range grew as well though not as much. The own a number of brands, including BlancPain, Omega, Longines, Hamilton, Certina, and Swatch. They also own ETA, which supplies movements to companies such as Tag, Zenith, IWC, and Baume. IIRC ETA is stopping selling OEM movements.
The Apple Watch is just a blip to them.
I believe the coffee shop owner won the case, unsurprisingly. But yes this is only one example, if you search around you’ll actually several examples of Apple trying to sue others for slogans or branding that they feel copies them..
Yeah, no.
https://www.businessinsider.com/app...tm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi
Lots of similar reports over the past few years.
The question then becomes.. How many Apple Watches could I have bought for the same price as my Rolex?
Sub question : Do I prefer a watch for life or a puter til the next version on my wrist?
Lol. I got a cease & desist from Apple legal when I used "Newton" in the name of a mobile device news web site back in the early 1990s. I'm not surprised they're arguing with Swatch. They go after everyone to defend their trademarks, which is what trademark law requires.
Swatch Group begs to differ:
And now the numbers! Figures we can present without blushing! Net sales of CHF 8475 million, up 5.7% compared to 2017 at constant exchange rates; an operating result of CHF 1154 million, up 15.2% compared to the previous year with an operating margin of 13.6% compared to 12.5% in 2017; a net income of CHF 867 million with a net margin of 10.2%, up from 9.5% in the previous year. A very solid result that inspires great confidence in the future.
The Apple Watch and mid to prestige watch markets are two separate things. The Apple Watch is nice, but a well crafted mechanical watch is a thing of beauty.
Last edited:
I think sometimes people think that this is corporate bullying. In reality, Apple has to do this. Unfortunately in our modern legal morass, the fact that they *tried* to defend the slogan will actually benefit them the next time they actually do have something close come up.
Apple never sued that cafe. They wrote to the owner to object to her trademark application unless she agreed not to use the logo on electronic devices.
The Apple Watch is more of an iPhone accessory, which is fine and I like smartwatches as a subsection of watches.
Of course Apple Watch can't begin to compete with quality mechanical watches, but then I would also prefer a $100 G-Shock that can go 10+ years without service if I could hypothetically only choose one watch.
Last edited:
If the Swiss are supposed to be beau teal, shouldn’t their courts be as well? This is clearly a biased ruling favoring a national company at the expense of logic and fairness.
I disagree. Trademark law is intended to protect marks used by companies so they have a distinctive way to identify their products. In this case, it seems reasonable that people would not get confused by Tick Different and associate it with Apple and not Swatch. Absent such potential confusion, Swatch should be free to use Tick Different.